1973 (4) TMI 82 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file a return of income under the Income-tax Act.
2. Best judgment assessment made by the Income-tax Officer.
3. Application filed under section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
4. Dismissal of appeals by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
5. Tribunal's decision regarding default under section 34(1A)/22(2) and section 22(4) of the Act.
6. Interpretation of the Tribunal's order dated August 4, 1967.
7. Dismissal of applications and assessment validity.

Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court pertains to reference applications under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, involving multiple assessment years. The assessee failed to file a return of income as required under the Act, leading to a best judgment assessment by the Income-tax Officer. Subsequently, the assessee filed applications under section 27 of the Act, claiming they were prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the notice under section 22(4) and filing the return. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals, upholding the default findings by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) (paragraph 3).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit affidavits to support their claim of being prevented by sufficient cause. After examination, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concluded that the assessee had failed to comply with the notice under section 22(4) and committed default in not filing the return. The matter was appealed to the Tribunal, where a disagreement arose regarding the previous Tribunal's order and the default findings. The Tribunal members differed on whether the assessee had defaulted under section 22(4) (paragraph 5).

The Tribunal ultimately found that the assessee had not shown sufficient cause for the default under section 34(1A)/22(2) and that, even if no default was found under section 22(4), the ex parte assessment stood valid. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging the default findings, emphasizing the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Segu Buchiah Setty (paragraph 5).

Regarding the interpretation of the Tribunal's previous order, the Tribunal members agreed that the order did not establish sufficient cause for the defaults. The judgment concluded by dismissing the applications, stating that no question of law arose, and awarded costs to the respondent (paragraph 7).